DCT
2:18-cv-00778
Connor Sport Court Intl v. Shijiazhuang Enlio Sports Goods
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Connor Sport Court Intl LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Shijiazhuang Enlio Sports Goods Co Ltd (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Thorpe North & Western
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00778, D. Utah, 10/04/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Utah because the Defendant has purportedly committed acts of infringement in the district by selling its products directly into Utah, thereby purposefully directing activities toward the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s modular athletic flooring products infringe two utility patents and one design patent related to the performance, safety, and appearance of synthetic floor tiles.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to modular synthetic tiles used for sports surfaces, where performance characteristics such as traction, impact absorption, and low abrasiveness are critical design and marketing factors.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff has provided notice to the public by marking articles covered by the patents-in-suit. No other significant procedural events are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-02-25 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,424,257 |
| 2004-10-06 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,407,951 |
| 2006-07-26 | Priority (Filing) Date for U.S. Patent No. D618,368 |
| 2010-06-22 | U.S. Patent No. D618,368 Issues |
| 2013-04-02 | U.S. Patent No. 8,407,951 Issues |
| 2013-04-23 | U.S. Patent No. 8,424,257 Issues |
| 2018-10-04 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,424,257 - "Modular Tile with Controlled Deflection"
- Issued: April 23, 2013.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the lack of predictable load absorption and "give" in conventional synthetic flooring, which does not replicate the beneficial spring-like characteristics of more expensive wood flooring used for sports ('257 Patent, col. 1:31-35, col. 2:1-4).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a modular tile with a multi-level support grid on its underside. The grid features "primary post structures" that are always in contact with the ground and are designed to deflect laterally under impact. It also includes shorter "secondary post structures" that are initially suspended above the ground. These secondary posts only make contact with the ground to provide additional support after the primary posts have deflected a certain amount, thus creating a controlled, two-stage shock absorption system ('257 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:5-40).
- Technical Importance: This design provides a mechanism for synthetic tiles to offer controlled, predictable impact absorption, aiming to improve player safety and performance by mimicking the characteristics of high-end athletic wood floors in a more durable and cost-effective format ('257 Patent, col. 2:5-11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least one claim, specifically reciting independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 44).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- A modular floor tile with a perimeter and an upper contact surface.
- A plurality of openings in the upper surface, defined by intersecting structural members.
- A "transition surface" on at least some structural members, creating a "blunt edge" between the member's upper surface and side surface.
- A "plurality of support members" extending downward from the intersecting structural members.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 8,407,951 - "Modular Synthetic Floor Tile Configured for Enhanced Performance"
- Issued: April 2, 2013.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a fundamental trade-off in prior art synthetic tiles: efforts to increase traction, such as adding nubs or aggressive surface textures, also tend to increase the surface's abrasiveness, heightening the risk of skin injury during a fall ('951 Patent, col. 2:21-40).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims to increase traction without increasing abrasiveness by manipulating the geometry of the openings in the tile's surface. The openings are designed with at least one "acute angle" which can "wedge" a portion of a pliable object (like a shoe sole) under lateral force, thereby increasing the coefficient of friction through compression ('951 Patent, col. 7:1-10). To maintain safety, the structural members forming these openings have smooth, planar top surfaces and a "blunt edge" created by a "transition surface" to reduce abrasiveness ('951 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This approach seeks to enhance athletic performance by providing superior grip while simultaneously improving safety, a key challenge in the design of synthetic sports surfaces ('951 Patent, col. 8:5-16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least one claim, specifically reciting independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 51).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- A modular synthetic floor tile with an upper contact surface.
- A plurality of openings defined by intersecting structural members configured to form "at least one acute angle."
- The structural members have a "smooth, planar top surface" and a transverse face.
- A "transition surface" between the top surface and the face, creating a "blunt edge."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. D618,368 - "Modular Synthetic Floor Tile"
- Issued: June 22, 2010.
Technology Synopsis
This design patent protects the ornamental, non-functional appearance of a modular floor tile. The claimed design consists of a bi-level surface, with an upper grid of intersecting diagonal ribs forming diamond-shaped openings, and a lower grid of intersecting orthogonal ribs, creating an overall distinctive visual impression (D’368 Patent, FIG. 1).
Asserted Claims
Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described.
Accused Features
The complaint alleges that the "Double Layer I" product incorporates design features "substantially the same as the claimed subject matter" of the patent (Compl. ¶27).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies two accused products: "Enlio Double Layer I" and "Enlio Double Layer Soft-connection II" (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 25).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are described as a "variety of athletic flooring products," specifically modular floor tiles (Compl. ¶22). The complaint alleges they are sold through online retailers to consumers throughout the United States, including in Utah (Compl. ¶23).
- The complaint provides a visual comparison suggesting the "Double Layer I" product has a multi-level, grid-like surface structure. This image shows a product with a top layer of intersecting ribs forming a grid pattern, similar in appearance to the design patent-in-suit (Compl. ¶27).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’257 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a modular floor tile, comprising: a perimeter; an upper contact surface within the perimeter; | The complaint alleges the Accused Products are modular floor tiles with a perimeter and an upper contact surface. | ¶45 | col. 21:26-29 |
| a plurality of openings formed in said upper contact surface, each of said openings comprising a plurality of internal angles defined by intersecting structural members | The complaint alleges the Accused Products have openings in their upper surface defined by intersecting structural members. | ¶45 | col. 21:30-34 |
| wherein said structural members comprise an upper planar contact surface and a side surface | The complaint alleges the structural members of the Accused Products have an upper planar contact surface and a side surface. | ¶45 | col. 21:33-34 |
| wherein at least some of said structural members further comprise a transition surface extending between the upper planar contact surface and the side surface... | The complaint alleges the structural members of the Accused Products have a transition surface creating a blunt edge. | ¶45 | col. 21:35-39 |
| a plurality of support members extending downward from at least some of the intersecting structural members. | The complaint alleges the Accused Products have downward-extending support members. | ¶45 | col. 21:40-42 |
’951 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A modular synthetic floor tile comprising: an upper contact surface; | The complaint alleges the Accused Products are modular synthetic floor tiles with an upper contact surface. | ¶52 | col. 22:12-14 |
| a plurality of openings formed in said upper contact surface, each of said openings having a geometry defined by structural members configured to intersect...to form at least one acute angle...said structural members having a smooth, planar top surface...and a face oriented transverse to said top surface; | The complaint alleges the Accused Products have openings formed by intersecting structural members that create at least one acute angle. | ¶52 | col. 22:15-24 |
| a transition surface extending between said top surface and said face of said structural members comprising a blunt edge between said top surface and said face. | The complaint alleges the structural members of the Accused Products have a transition surface creating a blunt edge. | ¶52 | col. 22:25-28 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Evidentiary Question (’257 Patent): The core of the ’257 Patent is its two-stage support structure with primary and secondary posts for controlled deflection. The complaint alleges infringement of a claim requiring "support members" but provides no specific factual or visual evidence showing that the Accused Products contain this specific, functionally-defined structure. A primary point of contention will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused support structures operate in the manner described and claimed in the patent.
- Technical and Scope Question (’951 Patent): A key dispute may center on whether the geometry of the openings in the Accused Products meets the "acute angle" limitation and whether this geometry functions to "wedge" an object to increase traction as the patent describes. The construction of "acute angle" and the evidence of the "wedging" function will be critical.
- Visual Comparison (’368 Patent): For the design patent, infringement turns on the "ordinary observer" test. The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison of the patented design and the "Double Layer I" product (Compl. ¶27). The dispute will focus on whether the overall visual impression is substantially the same, or if differences in the rib thickness, connector design, or grid proportions are significant enough to distinguish the two in the eyes of an ordinary purchaser.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "support members" (’257 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the ’257 Patent’s core concept of controlled deflection. While the claim language is broad, the specification extensively details a very specific two-part system of primary and secondary posts with different lengths and functions. The scope of "support members" will determine whether the claim reads on any support structure or is limited to the two-stage system.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself simply recites "a plurality of support members extending downward," without specifying different types, lengths, or functions (ʼ257 Patent, col. 21:40-42).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the invention in terms of "primary post structures" that always contact the floor and "secondary post structures" that are shorter and only engage upon deflection of the primary posts. A defendant may argue that this is the only invention disclosed and the term should be limited accordingly (ʼ257 Patent, col. 9:5-24; Abstract).
Term: "acute angle" (’951 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This geometric term is the central feature of the ’951 Patent’s claimed solution for increasing traction. The patent posits that this specific geometry creates a "wedging" effect. The definition of this term will be critical to determining if the grid pattern on the accused tiles infringes.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides a clear definition: "an angle or segment of structural members intersecting one another on an angle less than 90°" (ʼ951 Patent, col. 8:24-27). This suggests any angle under 90 degrees meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also provides a preferred range of "between 40 and 80 degrees" for the acute angles (ʼ951 Patent, col. 15:37-39). A defendant could argue that only angles within this "preferred" range are capable of performing the claimed wedging function and that the term should be construed more narrowly.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint includes conclusory allegations of induced and contributory infringement for the ’257 and ’951 patents (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 50). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support these claims, such as referencing user manuals or other instructions provided by the Defendant that would encourage infringing use by third parties.
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged for all three patents-in-suit, based on the assertion that Defendant knew it was "highly likely" its acts would infringe (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 54, 59). The allegations are made "upon information and belief" and do not specify whether the alleged knowledge was pre- or post-suit.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the support structure of the accused tiles perform the specific two-stage, controlled deflection function that is the central teaching of the ’257 patent, an allegation for which the complaint offers no detailed proof?
- A central issue will be one of definitional scope and function: can the term "acute angle" in the ’951 patent be construed to cover the geometry of the accused products, and does that geometry in fact produce the "wedging" effect for enhancing traction as described by the patent?
- For the ’368 design patent, the case will likely hinge on the "ordinary observer" test: are the visual similarities between the accused "Double Layer I" tile and the patented design, as shown in the complaint's side-by-side comparison, sufficient to confuse a potential buyer, or are the differences significant enough to avoid infringement?